also i really wish more people would check out “contours of ableism” by fiona kumari campbell

it is a very expensive book though, and academic theory, that is probably also a big part of why it is not very well-known

but it is one of the only texts that i know of that truly talks about transabled and devotee identities and experiences in a respectful way, and radically posits the desirability of disability

i also wish people did not justify difference with pathology— you do not have to have biid to be transabled— you do not have to be anything to be anything else— there are many people with biid who are transabled—

i think that people think of wanting an illness that is more easily seen as “deterioration” or terminal or “decay” (say, cancer) as more horrific/unacceptable than wanting a disability around which a movement of rights (disability as opposed to disease type language) has been built (say, deafness? in certain contexts) … “wanting” of course a nebulous term as any trans* identity necessarily must allow a range of possible experience/choice/desire/etc

also i have thoughts about how the idea of wanting to be older and possibly wanting a “deteriorating” body re: age is seen as so taboo, so terrible…. why is the desireability of “deterioration” so denied? of course, from a liberal reform perspective it makes sense. which is exactly why i am against liberalism. for a radical exploration/ respect of difference, we must consider the desireability of what is coded as abject… what is seen as terrible. the desireability of pain, disease, disorder, malaise. the validity of it above all

i’m speaking in really academic ways here because i’m afraid and i know in a lot of ways that is cowardice, people have proven time and again that you can run away with theory and use it to mask your malevolent intentions

but i think sometimes for marginalized folks who have any access to theory, it is our only recourse

but of course in so doing we use it against those we are privileged over